Authors blast 'harmful' SCOTUS ruling allowing parents to opt kids out of reading their LGBTQ+ books

Fox News

a day ago

Authors and illustrators of the controversial LGBTQ+ children's books at the center of Friday's Supreme Court ruling blasted the decision as "discriminatory and harmful" in a joint statement.
The justices decided 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the material conflicts with their religious faith. The parents who brought the suit spanned a range of religious backgrounds, from Muslims to Christians of different denominations.
The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the Montgomery County Public Schools board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted "gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance."
The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then prevented opt-outs. They also said the presence of the books created "indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice," which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights.
Authors and illustrators of the books mentioned in the court case responded in a scathing letter.
"As the authors and illustrators of the books named in Mahmoud v. Taylor, we believe the Supreme Court's ruling today threatens students' access to diverse books and undermines teachers' efforts to create safe, inclusive classrooms. To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful. This decision will inevitably lead to an increasingly hostile climate for LGBTQ+ students and families, and create a less welcoming environment for all students," they said.
After arguing that such books not only make children feel more represented, but also teach children "how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves," the group of authors and illustrators argued they are part of a far larger shift.
"We know there are families and educators across the country who are committed to creating inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of the diverse groups of students in their school districts. We are with them in spirit as they work to ensure that all students are seen and supported," the group said. "We will continue to support LGBTQ+ families and children everywhere and advocate for the right of all students to read freely. We strongly disagree with the Court's decision."
Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the ruling as a win for "parental rights" and a loss for "bureaucrats."
"Parents have the right to know what their children are learning at school and to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion to opt out of divisive and ideological lessons that go against their families' values and beliefs," McMahon said.
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, the legal group that represented the parents' case, said, "This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission. Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised."